Detection efficiency at the in-stream PIT tag array closest to the mouth of the tributary (the confluence of the tributary with the mainstem Columbia or Snake River) was estimated for each tributary state. However, detection efficiency was not modeled for three tributaries of the Snake River (the Salmon River, the Grande Ronde River, and the Clearwater River), as these tributaries did not have a detection site on the mainstem of the tributary within 100 km of the confluence. The data used to estimate detection efficiency at the river mouth sites was detections at the river mouth site and detections anywhere upstream of the river mouth site. In this analysis, we only included fish that were detected at a site upstream of the river mouth site, and then used a binary indicator to record if those fish were also detected at the river mouth site.
We modeled detection efficiency in tributaries using logistic regression based on two predictors: 1) changes in antenna configurations over time, and 2) the discharge in the tributary. Changes in antenna configurations were identified from the operational history of the site, based on antennas being installed, decommissioned, upgraded, or moved. Changes in antenna configurations are identified in Table S1. Discharge was included as a predictor based on our hypothesis that river stage would influence the antenna coverage of the river channel. Discharge data were queried from USGS by finding the station on the interactive USGS dashboard closest the river mouth array and navigating to the data page for the specific site. Discharge data were available for all tributaries except Fifteenmile Creek and the Imnaha River; detection efficiency in these tributaries was therefore only modeled as a function of antenna configurations. We processed discharge data for inclusion in the model by taking the mean discharge across the run year.
Table S1: Tributary PIT tag antenna configurations used in detection efficiency estimation. Years refer to the Steelhead run years in which the site was active in a specific configuration. Site refers to the PIT tag detection site chosen for the detection efficiency estimation, based on its proximity to the mouth of the tributary. Configuration refers to the configuration of antennas at the site, where Initial is the name given to the antenna configuration at the site at the start of the time series, and any subsequent changes from the initial configuration at the site are noted in this column.
| Tributary | Years | Site | Configuration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hood River | 12/13-23/24 | Hood River Mouth (HRM) | Initial |
| Fifteenmile Creek | 11/12-18/19 | Fifteenmile Ck at Eighmile Ck (158) | Initial |
| Deschutes River | 13/14-18/19 | Deschutes River Mouth (DRM) | Initial |
| John Day River | 12/13-23/24 | John Day River, McDonald Ferry (JD1) | Initial |
| Umatilla River | 06/07-13/14 | Three Mile Falls Dam (TMF) | Initial |
| Umatilla River | 14/15-23/24 | Three Mile Falls Dam (TMF) | Antenna installation at entrance to adult ladder |
| Walla Walla River | 05/06-11/12 | Oasis Road Bridge (ORB) | Initial |
| Walla Walla River | 12/13-14/15 | Oasis Road Bridge (ORB) and Walla Walla R at Pierce RV Pk (PRV) | Initial configuration where two mouth sites were operational simultaneously and their joint detection efficiency was estimated |
| Walla Walla River | 15/16-18/19 | Walla Walla R at Pierce RV Pk (PRV) | Initial |
| Walla Walla River | 19/20-23/24 | Walla Walla River Barge Array (WWB) | Initial |
| Yakima River | 05/06-23/24 | Prosser Diversion Dam (PRO) | Initial |
| Wenatchee River | 10/11-23/24 | Lower Wenatchee River (LWE) | Initial |
| Entiat River | 07/08-23/24 | Lower Entiat River (ENL) | Initial |
| Methow River | 09/10-16/17 | Lower Methow River at Pateros (LMR) | Initial |
| Methow River | 17/18-23/24 | Lower Methow River at Pateros (LMR) | Site was moved 5 km upstream and transceivers replaced |
| Okanogan River | 13/14-23/24 | Lower Okanogan Instream Array (OKL) | Initial |
| Tucannon River | 10/11-19/20 | Lower Tucannon River (LTR) | Initial |
| Tucannon River | 20/21-23/24 | Lower Tucannon River (LTR) | All antennas replaced, additional antenna installed |
| Asotin Creek | 11/12-17/18 | Asotin Creek Mouth (ACM) | Initial |
| Asotin Creek | 18/19-23/24 | Asotin Creek Mouth (ACM) | All components replaced and upgraded |
| Imnaha River | 10/11-23/24 | Lower Imnaha River ISA @ km 7 (IR1) | Initial |
For our model of detection efficiency, the data included all fish that were detected at a site upstream of the river mouth. We then denote \(z_i\) as the detection of fish \(i\) at the river mouth site, \(p_{det,i}\) as the probability of detection for fish \(i\), \(\alpha_{j,k}\) as the antenna configuration for tributary \(j\) under configuration \(k\), \(\beta_j\) as the slope for the effect of discharge, and \(x_{j,t}\) as the mean discharge for tributary \(j\) in run year \(t\). The model for detection efficiency was as follows:
\[ z_i \sim Bernoulli(p_{det,i}) \\ logit(p_{det,i}) =\alpha_{j,k} + \beta_j x_{j,t} \]
The above model was implemented in Stan (Carpenter et al., 2017), with 3 chains run for 5,000 warmup and 5,000 sampling iterations each. Discharge values were Z-scored prior to the model being fit. The posteriors from this model for each of the \(\alpha\) (site configuration intercepts) and \(\beta\) (effect of discharge) terms were used as priors in the primary Stan model that was used to estimate movement. The resulting detection efficiency correction for each run year can be found in Supplemental Results 4.
Due to the noise and gaps inherent to the temperature data, a series of steps were performed to clean this data. First, plots of temperature were manually inspected and sequential runs of temperature points that were outside of the range of possible values for that time of year were removed. Next, a filtering algorithm was applied to remove any temperature values that were more than four degrees outside of the interannual average temperature value for that day of the year, as well as any values that were more than two degrees outside of the 7-day moving average. To address the incomplete temporal resolution for temperature at each dam in our modeling framework, a state-space model was fit using the MARSS package (Holmes et al. 2012). The inputs for this model were the cleaned temperature data at the forebay and tailrace for the eight dams (a total of 16 temperature time series). The model was structured with only a single process (the basin-scale temperature) and 16 observations of that process. Each dam had a different offset/bias term (8 total). Model-estimated temperatures on each day for each dam were then exported by using the estimate of the basin-scale temperature plus the dam-specific offset.
To estimate the temperatures experienced by fish, the median residence time in each state in our model was first calculated. To do so, we calculated the difference between the date on which a fish was observed exiting a state and the date on which a fish was observed entering a state, and then computed the state-specific median across all fish. However, for the two furthest upstream states (upstream of Lower Granite Dam and upstream of Wells Dam), above which there are no more dams with fish passage, residence times were significantly longer and were found to be bimodal. These furthest upstream states are also observed to have more variability in median residence times because of their position in the PIT tag array network (see plots below). Based on our hypothesis that movement decisions are made soon after a fish enters a state, we fit a two-component mixture model using the mixtools package in R (Benaglia et al. 2010) to residence times in these states and used the median residence time for fish in the first mode. The mean temperature experienced by each fish while in a state was estimated as the mean temperature across a window of time defined as the date the fish was observed entering a state plus the median residence time for all fish in that state.
Daily average spill (in thousands of cubic feet per second) was queried from the Columbia Basin Conditions portal from the DART page for the eight dams that were modeled as the boundaries of states (Bonneville, McNary, Priest Rapids, Rock Island, Rocky Reach, Wells, Ice Harbor, and Lower Granite). Spill data were processed in two different ways to facilitate the inclusion of two hypothesized relationships between spill and fish fallback over dams. For en-route fallback, spill volume was processed in the same way as temperature: by taking the mean volume of spill across the residence time window. For post-overshoot fallback, spill volume was converted into days of winter spill, by counting the number of days that had nonzero spill in the months of January, February, and March for each year.
Residence time was calculated across all fish and all years. Variability in residence time by year (visualized below as the median residence time by year with the error bars showing the 95% interquantile range) was generally not significant. Furthermore, dividing up the dataset by year would have led to small sample sizes in some years, leading to an unrepresentative residence time.
Residence time for fish in the state between Bonneville and McNary Dams.
Residence time for fish in the state between McNary and Ice Harbor/Priest Rapids Dams.
Residence time for fish in the state between Priest Rapids and Rock Island Dams.
Residence time for fish in the state between Rock Island and Rocky Reach Dams.
Residence time for fish in the state between Rocky Reach and Wells Dams.
Residence time for fish in the state between Ice Harbor and Lower Granite Dams.
Residence time for fish in the state upstream of Wells Dam.
Residence time for fish in the state upstream of Lower Granite Dam.
| Population | 05/06 | 06/07 | 07/08 | 08/09 | 09/10 | 10/11 | 11/12 | 12/13 | 13/14 | 14/15 | 15/16 | 16/17 | 17/18 | 18/19 | 19/20 | 20/21 | 21/22 | 22/23 | 23/24 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fifteenmile Creek (N, in-river) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 47 | 89 | 95 | 33 | 32 | 37 | 24 | 10 | 18 | 43 | 39 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 490 |
| Deschutes River (N, in-river) | 0 | 0 | 38 | 68 | 117 | 113 | 109 | 81 | 180 | 97 | 49 | 40 | 28 | 39 | 45 | 27 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1034 |
| John Day River (N, in-river) | 68 | 119 | 114 | 247 | 347 | 279 | 287 | 151 | 261 | 243 | 217 | 88 | 80 | 67 | 113 | 72 | 50 | 68 | 113 | 2984 |
| Umatilla River (H, in-river) | 9 | 12 | 59 | 80 | 115 | 77 | 64 | 24 | 13 | 36 | 42 | 29 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 36 | 86 | 713 |
| Umatilla River (N, in-river) | 2 | 10 | 17 | 21 | 14 | 13 | 81 | 65 | 68 | 171 | 278 | 145 | 117 | 62 | 58 | 34 | 53 | 113 | 88 | 1410 |
| Walla Walla River (H, in-river) | 33 | 32 | 25 | 301 | 415 | 222 | 261 | 120 | 111 | 163 | 114 | 112 | 119 | 97 | 58 | 41 | 48 | 111 | 65 | 2448 |
| Walla Walla River (N, in-river) | 11 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 61 | 95 | 115 | 90 | 57 | 75 | 72 | 19 | 27 | 19 | 23 | 15 | 23 | 39 | 27 | 797 |
| Yakima River (N, in-river) | 15 | 12 | 18 | 16 | 33 | 23 | 40 | 18 | 45 | 78 | 93 | 38 | 42 | 46 | 60 | 50 | 44 | 40 | 66 | 777 |
| Wenatchee River (H, in-river) | 399 | 400 | 350 | 450 | 818 | 523 | 427 | 380 | 183 | 189 | 173 | 25 | 38 | 27 | 20 | 69 | 3 | 31 | 28 | 4533 |
| Wenatchee River (N, in-river) | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 71 | 73 | 53 | 32 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 15 | 14 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 422 |
| Entiat River (N, in-river) | 0 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 75 | 74 | 55 | 26 | 43 | 66 | 56 | 34 | 8 | 15 | 17 | 12 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 513 |
| Methow River (H, in-river) | 1866 | 3088 | 478 | 35 | 128 | 58 | 319 | 324 | 292 | 286 | 289 | 108 | 126 | 50 | 31 | 86 | 92 | 113 | 139 | 7908 |
| Methow River (N, in-river) | 0 | 0 | 6 | 13 | 42 | 24 | 33 | 18 | 43 | 44 | 51 | 22 | 13 | 7 | 25 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 17 | 414 |
| Okanogan River (H, in-river) | 172 | 36 | 8 | 17 | 9 | 9 | 117 | 134 | 100 | 141 | 115 | 56 | 78 | 42 | 18 | 50 | 20 | 39 | 76 | 1237 |
| Tucannon River (H, in-river) | 56 | 40 | 382 | 322 | 576 | 231 | 162 | 78 | 96 | 112 | 95 | 57 | 46 | 38 | 22 | 14 | 39 | 95 | 82 | 2543 |
| Tucannon River (H, transported) | 2 | 43 | 167 | 101 | 63 | 28 | 4 | 5 | 25 | 29 | 38 | 19 | 23 | 13 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 594 |
| Tucannon River (N, in-river) | 33 | 14 | 22 | 8 | 50 | 43 | 50 | 54 | 45 | 59 | 58 | 9 | 22 | 9 | 20 | 20 | 13 | 25 | 26 | 580 |
| Tucannon River (N, transported) | 2 | 10 | 18 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 63 |
| Clearwater River (H, in-river) | 13 | 30 | 46 | 163 | 75 | 469 | 592 | 492 | 241 | 322 | 266 | 467 | 155 | 234 | 70 | 208 | 128 | 508 | 365 | 4844 |
| Clearwater River (H, transported) | 23 | 4 | 2 | 13 | 20 | 210 | 129 | 158 | 74 | 46 | 51 | 104 | 5 | 21 | 3 | 109 | 41 | 44 | 29 | 1086 |
| Clearwater River (N, in-river) | 13 | 6 | 20 | 51 | 87 | 128 | 105 | 63 | 69 | 234 | 84 | 32 | 20 | 15 | 22 | 44 | 16 | 43 | 23 | 1075 |
| Clearwater River (N, transported) | 24 | 23 | 30 | 28 | 51 | 72 | 35 | 48 | 19 | 51 | 93 | 50 | 7 | 8 | 23 | 67 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 657 |
| Asotin Creek (N, transported) | 0 | 1 | 11 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 23 | 27 | 18 | 43 | 37 | 13 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 275 |
| Asotin Creek (N, in-river) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 9 | 19 | 18 | 61 | 64 | 20 | 15 | 14 | 6 | 10 | 22 | 11 | 30 | 17 | 332 |
| Grande Ronde River (H, in-river) | 18 | 10 | 61 | 75 | 680 | 387 | 469 | 290 | 309 | 427 | 401 | 281 | 305 | 187 | 93 | 99 | 118 | 206 | 240 | 4656 |
| Grande Ronde River (H, transported) | 1 | 92 | 102 | 74 | 455 | 232 | 185 | 124 | 73 | 144 | 148 | 86 | 40 | 38 | 54 | 82 | 28 | 32 | 39 | 2029 |
| Grande Ronde River (N, in-river) | 8 | 2 | 19 | 21 | 50 | 70 | 65 | 49 | 54 | 53 | 47 | 19 | 13 | 9 | 19 | 10 | 6 | 15 | 8 | 537 |
| Grande Ronde River (N, transported) | 27 | 13 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 13 | 21 | 15 | 9 | 9 | 21 | 17 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 14 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 239 |
| Salmon River (H, in-river) | 14 | 18 | 63 | 71 | 1003 | 740 | 1017 | 586 | 699 | 753 | 433 | 262 | 208 | 149 | 116 | 143 | 162 | 192 | 241 | 6870 |
| Salmon River (H, transported) | 22 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 647 | 493 | 454 | 363 | 266 | 384 | 277 | 165 | 88 | 68 | 68 | 154 | 57 | 37 | 49 | 3605 |
| Salmon River (N, in-river) | 10 | 4 | 8 | 36 | 117 | 80 | 87 | 45 | 99 | 135 | 62 | 25 | 16 | 17 | 20 | 23 | 21 | 41 | 27 | 873 |
| Salmon River (N, transported) | 7 | 17 | 11 | 13 | 41 | 24 | 39 | 25 | 17 | 13 | 28 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 25 | 6 | 9 | 14 | 313 |
| Imnaha River (H, in-river) | 25 | 31 | 28 | 31 | 356 | 233 | 262 | 91 | 242 | 242 | 225 | 84 | 114 | 68 | 49 | 54 | 108 | 168 | 163 | 2574 |
| Imnaha River (H, transported) | 6 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 378 | 209 | 130 | 70 | 95 | 166 | 182 | 72 | 50 | 35 | 24 | 41 | 13 | 13 | 29 | 1525 |
| Imnaha River (N, in-river) | 19 | 5 | 11 | 45 | 96 | 77 | 79 | 42 | 63 | 79 | 84 | 34 | 21 | 16 | 21 | 30 | 31 | 42 | 52 | 847 |
| Imnaha River (N, transported) | 19 | 9 | 24 | 79 | 55 | 47 | 64 | 28 | 30 | 50 | 78 | 24 | 16 | 8 | 19 | 23 | 11 | 5 | 15 | 604 |
| Total | 2917 | 4102 | 2184 | 2468 | 7137 | 5486 | 6047 | 4168 | 4063 | 5080 | 4346 | 2577 | 1895 | 1484 | 1218 | 1707 | 1204 | 2154 | 2164 | 62401 |
In this section, we present summaries of the three basin condition covariates incorporated in this model: temperature, spill volume, and number of winter spill days. We first present summary tables that show the differences in these covariates by run year and by dam, and then present figures that show the fine-scale details in these trends by dam and across year.
| Run Year | BON | MCN | PRA | RIS | RRE | WEL | ICH | LGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 12.60 | 11.81 | 10.93 | 10.55 | 10.54 | 10.36 | 11.90 | 11.01 |
| 06/07 | 12.70 | 11.91 | 11.03 | 10.66 | 10.64 | 10.46 | 12.00 | 11.11 |
| 07/08 | 12.34 | 11.55 | 10.67 | 10.29 | 10.28 | 10.10 | 11.64 | 10.75 |
| 08/09 | 12.14 | 11.35 | 10.47 | 10.10 | 10.09 | 9.90 | 11.44 | 10.55 |
| 09/10 | 12.80 | 12.01 | 11.13 | 10.75 | 10.74 | 10.56 | 12.10 | 11.21 |
| 10/11 | 12.36 | 11.58 | 10.70 | 10.32 | 10.31 | 10.13 | 11.67 | 10.78 |
| 11/12 | 12.18 | 11.39 | 10.52 | 10.14 | 10.13 | 9.94 | 11.49 | 10.59 |
| 12/13 | 12.81 | 12.02 | 11.14 | 10.77 | 10.75 | 10.57 | 12.11 | 11.22 |
| 13/14 | 12.92 | 12.13 | 11.26 | 10.88 | 10.87 | 10.68 | 12.23 | 11.33 |
| 14/15 | 13.72 | 12.93 | 12.06 | 11.68 | 11.67 | 11.49 | 13.03 | 12.13 |
| 15/16 | 14.02 | 13.23 | 12.35 | 11.98 | 11.96 | 11.78 | 13.32 | 12.43 |
| 16/17 | 13.08 | 12.30 | 11.42 | 11.04 | 11.03 | 10.85 | 12.39 | 11.50 |
| 17/18 | 13.29 | 12.50 | 11.62 | 11.25 | 11.23 | 11.05 | 12.59 | 11.70 |
| 18/19 | 13.24 | 12.45 | 11.57 | 11.19 | 11.18 | 11.00 | 12.54 | 11.65 |
| 19/20 | 13.25 | 12.46 | 11.59 | 11.21 | 11.20 | 11.01 | 12.56 | 11.66 |
| 20/21 | 13.15 | 12.36 | 11.49 | 11.11 | 11.10 | 10.91 | 12.46 | 11.56 |
| 21/22 | 13.18 | 12.39 | 11.52 | 11.14 | 11.13 | 10.94 | 12.49 | 11.59 |
| 22/23 | 12.88 | 12.09 | 11.21 | 10.83 | 10.82 | 10.64 | 12.18 | 11.29 |
| 23/24 | 13.90 | 13.11 | 12.23 | 11.86 | 11.85 | 11.66 | 13.20 | 12.31 |
| Run Year | BON | MCN | PRA | RIS | RRE | WEL | ICH | LGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 41.81 | 48.98 | 22.65 | 9.17 | 5.45 | 6.93 | 16.50 | 12.10 |
| 06/07 | 41.00 | 44.03 | 13.77 | 8.11 | 5.14 | 9.49 | 13.98 | 8.91 |
| 07/08 | 42.10 | 37.95 | 8.24 | 8.01 | 3.82 | 4.60 | 13.54 | 9.87 |
| 08/09 | 43.57 | 45.81 | 10.91 | 7.92 | 4.99 | 6.90 | 20.56 | 12.31 |
| 09/10 | 36.58 | 32.68 | 8.55 | 5.91 | 2.01 | 2.86 | 14.49 | 8.67 |
| 10/11 | 51.84 | 65.60 | 22.67 | 11.34 | 7.73 | 8.77 | 22.48 | 14.32 |
| 11/12 | 65.71 | 82.03 | 43.37 | 18.61 | 18.67 | 21.32 | 27.35 | 15.30 |
| 12/13 | 47.16 | 64.59 | 41.49 | 16.55 | 18.44 | 17.36 | 16.08 | 9.08 |
| 13/14 | 43.32 | 51.86 | 21.70 | 15.52 | 6.61 | 7.12 | 15.22 | 8.78 |
| 14/15 | 42.42 | 46.22 | 19.42 | 13.09 | 5.14 | 4.86 | 13.89 | 7.98 |
| 15/16 | 39.32 | 35.75 | 14.26 | 7.67 | 3.48 | 4.63 | 12.97 | 6.92 |
| 16/17 | 71.28 | 74.21 | 35.89 | 20.11 | 19.61 | 12.14 | 29.43 | 19.21 |
| 17/18 | 59.17 | 69.46 | 35.61 | 24.07 | 18.67 | 17.40 | 27.93 | 14.83 |
| 18/19 | 42.83 | 49.98 | 14.60 | 8.49 | 5.45 | 6.87 | 23.44 | 12.87 |
| 19/20 | 43.00 | 49.63 | 13.27 | 9.74 | 6.19 | 5.36 | 16.00 | 13.87 |
| 20/21 | 43.06 | 49.52 | 19.19 | 14.76 | 10.09 | 10.14 | 14.71 | 13.45 |
| 21/22 | 42.98 | 47.77 | 15.57 | 9.05 | 3.11 | 6.65 | 12.65 | 10.96 |
| 22/23 | 51.71 | 65.12 | 30.36 | 20.68 | 11.20 | 14.26 | 21.91 | 16.43 |
| 23/24 | 43.82 | 38.14 | 10.31 | 5.97 | 1.58 | 2.68 | 16.60 | 17.13 |
| Run Year | MCN | PRA | RIS | RRE | WEL | ICH | LGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 13 | 0 |
| 06/07 | 20 | 10 | 2 | 15 | 25 | 8 | 7 |
| 07/08 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 2 |
| 08/09 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 17 | 13 | 2 | 1 |
| 09/10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| 10/11 | 71 | 29 | 27 | 19 | 21 | 17 | 3 |
| 11/12 | 20 | 11 | 6 | 17 | 14 | 15 | 9 |
| 12/13 | 17 | 17 | 4 | 18 | 18 | 10 | 1 |
| 13/14 | 27 | 27 | 29 | 31 | 23 | 16 | 9 |
| 14/15 | 74 | 52 | 6 | 42 | 36 | 6 | 2 |
| 15/16 | 11 | 6 | 36 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 2 |
| 16/17 | 49 | 43 | 23 | 49 | 19 | 48 | 36 |
| 17/18 | 33 | 41 | 52 | 29 | 65 | 59 | 8 |
| 18/19 | 0 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 20 | 15 | 2 |
| 19/20 | 29 | 20 | 33 | 50 | 10 | 4 | 2 |
| 20/21 | 21 | 35 | 41 | 39 | 24 | 14 | 14 |
| 21/22 | 59 | 46 | 34 | 10 | 42 | 15 | 13 |
| 22/23 | 14 | 28 | 12 | 6 | 13 | 14 | 25 |
| 23/24 | 31 | 25 | 20 | 10 | 6 | 31 | 52 |
In the panels below, plots of temperature, spill volume, and number of winter spill days are shown for each of the mainstem dams in this study. Please note that because the temperature visualized here (and incorporated into the model) is an output from a MARSS model that estimated a single temperature state for the entire Columbia River Basin, all dams have the same trends in temperature, but with different overall magnitudes. The choice to model the entire basin as a single temperature trend was necessitated by significant gaps in data at some dams.
Because PIT-tag arrays are largely incapable of directly detecting fallback (most dams do not have PIT antennas in the spillway), we were not able to observe post-overshoot fallback directly. As such, we sought to characterize spillway passage availability during the time of potential fallback as informed by subsequent detections. The figure below shows the next detection after a post-overshoot fallback movement, showing the overall pattern of post-overshoot fallback timing.
Timing of detections directly following a post-overshoot fallback movement.
The table below shows the proportion of fish from each population that received the January-March spill days covariate, based on their fallback timing.
| population | In Window | total | proportion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deschutes River natural in-river | 6 | 11 | 0.55 |
| John Day River natural in-river | 1328 | 2703 | 0.49 |
| Fifteenmile Creek natural in-river | 31 | 55 | 0.56 |
| Umatilla River natural in-river | 482 | 951 | 0.51 |
| Umatilla River hatchery in-river | 236 | 366 | 0.64 |
| Yakima River natural in-river | 71 | 215 | 0.33 |
| Walla Walla River natural in-river | 272 | 464 | 0.59 |
| Walla Walla River hatchery in-river | 1335 | 2478 | 0.54 |
| Entiat River natural in-river | 134 | 197 | 0.68 |
| Wenatchee River natural in-river | 19 | 73 | 0.26 |
| Wenatchee River hatchery in-river | 1820 | 4042 | 0.45 |
| Tucannon River natural in-river | 288 | 373 | 0.77 |
| Tucannon River natural transported | 14 | 17 | 0.82 |
| Tucannon River hatchery in-river | 1236 | 1601 | 0.77 |
| Tucannon River hatchery transported | 95 | 114 | 0.83 |
To expand on the data presented in the previous table, the figures below show the timing of observations of overshoot (first point) and first observation following post-overshoot fallback (second point) for each fish from a given population. Red points indicate terminal overshoot observations (where fish were not seen again below an overshoot dam following overshoot). Lines connecting overshoot observations with observations following post-overshoot fallback indicate the time period in which a fallback event must have occurred. Dashed green lines indicate the winter months (January, February, and March) that were used to characterize the likely spill conditions encountered by fish in overshoot states. In our model, any fish that was last observed overshooting (red dots) or where based on their detection history, may have fallen back during January, February, or March (any black lines that are at least partially between the two dashed green lines) are affected by the winter spill days covariate.
The figures below show the estimated relationship between discharge and detection efficiency at the river mouth sites for different tributaries in different site configurations. As mentioned in Supplemental Methods 1, our a priori hypothesis was that detection efficiency would generally decrease as discharge increases, as increased flow would increase the area that is outside the detection range of the PIT tag arrays. However, as seen below, for some tributaries we estimated a positive relationship between discharge and detection efficiency. This estimated relationship may be the result of spurious correlations, or may be a true positive relationship. Spurious correlations may be due to changes to the PIT-tag antenna configurations or operations that were not captured in our site configuration covariate in the detection level efficiency estimation. While we attempted to capture major changes, an inspection of the operational history and event log summary at each site on the PTAGIS Interrogation Site Metadata reveals numerous events (e.g., battery failures, flood damage, equipment failures and repairs) that may have affected the detection efficiency and confounded the relationship with discharge. However, there may have also been a true positive relationship between discharge and detections efficiency, as there are reasons that higher discharge may actually be favorable for detection efficiency. For example, PIT tag arrays are known to perform poorly in cases where two or more fish pass over the antenna at the same time (Greenberg and Ciller 2000), which may be more likely when flows are low. Furthermore, fish behavior can change with changing stream conditions, and the ability of PIT tag interrogation systems to detect fish can change with conditions that are affected by flow, including water temperature, conductivity, and air temperature (Connolly et al. 2008).
| Dam | Mean Flow | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bonneville Dam | 177.04 | 46.73 | 0.61 |
| McNary Dam | 168.59 | 52.07 | 0.80 |
| Priest Rapids Dam | 117.07 | 20.84 | 0.72 |
| Rock Island Dam | 113.00 | 12.22 | 0.60 |
| Rocky Reach Dam | 109.27 | 8.12 | 0.61 |
| Wells Dam | 109.43 | 8.80 | 0.65 |
| Ice Harbor Dam | 45.87 | 18.17 | 0.82 |
| Lower Granite Dam | 45.33 | 12.23 | 0.71 |
| Dam | Mean temp | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bonneville Dam | 13.11 | 46.73 | 0.08 |
| McNary Dam | 12.32 | 52.07 | 0.04 |
| Priest Rapids Dam | 11.45 | 20.84 | 0.03 |
| Rock Island Dam | 11.07 | 12.22 | 0.04 |
| Rocky Reach Dam | 11.06 | 8.12 | 0.01 |
| Wells Dam | 10.87 | 8.80 | 0.01 |
| Ice Harbor Dam | 12.42 | 18.17 | 0.00 |
| Lower Granite Dam | 11.52 | 12.23 | 0.02 |
| Run Year | Mean Flow | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 180.17 | 41.81 | 0.53 |
| 06/07 | 181.43 | 41.00 | 0.50 |
| 07/08 | 158.63 | 42.10 | 0.63 |
| 08/09 | 176.30 | 43.57 | 0.72 |
| 09/10 | 140.96 | 36.58 | 0.61 |
| 10/11 | 202.42 | 51.84 | 0.63 |
| 11/12 | 226.12 | 65.71 | 0.89 |
| 12/13 | 200.28 | 47.16 | 0.80 |
| 13/14 | 179.49 | 43.32 | 0.62 |
| 14/15 | 179.59 | 42.42 | 0.17 |
| 15/16 | 165.34 | 39.32 | 0.23 |
| 16/17 | 213.67 | 71.28 | 0.74 |
| 17/18 | 211.81 | 59.17 | 0.70 |
| 18/19 | 167.99 | 42.83 | 0.63 |
| 19/20 | 157.30 | 43.00 | 0.46 |
| 20/21 | 169.73 | 43.06 | 0.55 |
| 21/22 | 162.99 | 42.98 | 0.27 |
| 22/23 | 180.03 | 51.71 | 0.86 |
| 23/24 | 137.09 | 43.82 | 0.64 |
| Run Year | Mean Temperature | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 12.60 | 41.81 | 0.15 |
| 06/07 | 12.70 | 41.00 | 0.18 |
| 07/08 | 12.34 | 42.10 | 0.16 |
| 08/09 | 12.14 | 43.57 | 0.13 |
| 09/10 | 12.80 | 36.58 | 0.19 |
| 10/11 | 12.36 | 51.84 | 0.05 |
| 11/12 | 12.18 | 65.71 | 0.07 |
| 12/13 | 12.81 | 47.16 | 0.14 |
| 13/14 | 12.92 | 43.32 | 0.12 |
| 14/15 | 13.72 | 42.42 | 0.13 |
| 15/16 | 14.02 | 39.32 | 0.21 |
| 16/17 | 13.08 | 71.28 | 0.00 |
| 17/18 | 13.29 | 59.17 | 0.06 |
| 18/19 | 13.24 | 42.83 | 0.14 |
| 19/20 | 13.25 | 43.00 | 0.14 |
| 20/21 | 13.15 | 43.06 | 0.09 |
| 21/22 | 13.18 | 42.98 | 0.08 |
| 22/23 | 12.88 | 51.71 | 0.05 |
| 23/24 | 13.90 | 43.82 | 0.08 |
| Run Year | Mean Flow | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 171.49 | 48.98 | 0.70 |
| 06/07 | 170.81 | 44.03 | 0.74 |
| 07/08 | 149.40 | 37.95 | 0.81 |
| 08/09 | 164.91 | 45.81 | 0.86 |
| 09/10 | 132.37 | 32.68 | 0.82 |
| 10/11 | 190.75 | 65.60 | 0.87 |
| 11/12 | 215.33 | 82.03 | 0.97 |
| 12/13 | 192.16 | 64.59 | 0.92 |
| 13/14 | 171.66 | 51.86 | 0.86 |
| 14/15 | 174.30 | 46.22 | 0.61 |
| 15/16 | 156.69 | 35.75 | 0.55 |
| 16/17 | 204.29 | 74.21 | 0.85 |
| 17/18 | 204.60 | 69.46 | 0.82 |
| 18/19 | 159.08 | 49.98 | 0.86 |
| 19/20 | 150.22 | 49.63 | 0.78 |
| 20/21 | 162.52 | 49.52 | 0.81 |
| 21/22 | 155.80 | 47.77 | 0.55 |
| 22/23 | 173.80 | 65.12 | 0.91 |
| 23/24 | 129.43 | 38.14 | 0.74 |
| Run Year | Mean Temperature | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 11.81 | 48.98 | 0.11 |
| 06/07 | 11.91 | 44.03 | 0.14 |
| 07/08 | 11.55 | 37.95 | 0.15 |
| 08/09 | 11.35 | 45.81 | 0.10 |
| 09/10 | 12.01 | 32.68 | 0.18 |
| 10/11 | 11.58 | 65.60 | 0.00 |
| 11/12 | 11.39 | 82.03 | 0.05 |
| 12/13 | 12.02 | 64.59 | 0.14 |
| 13/14 | 12.13 | 51.86 | 0.06 |
| 14/15 | 12.93 | 46.22 | 0.06 |
| 15/16 | 13.23 | 35.75 | 0.13 |
| 16/17 | 12.30 | 74.21 | 0.00 |
| 17/18 | 12.50 | 69.46 | 0.02 |
| 18/19 | 12.45 | 49.98 | 0.06 |
| 19/20 | 12.46 | 49.63 | 0.07 |
| 20/21 | 12.36 | 49.52 | 0.08 |
| 21/22 | 12.39 | 47.77 | 0.02 |
| 22/23 | 12.09 | 65.12 | 0.04 |
| 23/24 | 13.11 | 38.14 | 0.07 |
| Run Year | Mean Flow | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 114.99 | 22.65 | 0.41 |
| 06/07 | 122.40 | 13.77 | 0.51 |
| 07/08 | 106.20 | 8.24 | 0.58 |
| 08/09 | 106.28 | 10.91 | 0.69 |
| 09/10 | 88.09 | 8.55 | 0.50 |
| 10/11 | 125.87 | 22.67 | 0.68 |
| 11/12 | 147.35 | 43.37 | 0.93 |
| 12/13 | 147.75 | 41.49 | 0.86 |
| 13/14 | 123.81 | 21.70 | 0.78 |
| 14/15 | 126.11 | 19.42 | 0.52 |
| 15/16 | 111.21 | 14.26 | 0.49 |
| 16/17 | 138.56 | 35.89 | 0.85 |
| 17/18 | 138.43 | 35.61 | 0.85 |
| 18/19 | 104.91 | 14.60 | 0.75 |
| 19/20 | 101.01 | 13.27 | 0.58 |
| 20/21 | 117.17 | 19.19 | 0.74 |
| 21/22 | 115.20 | 15.57 | 0.34 |
| 22/23 | 120.31 | 30.36 | 0.89 |
| 23/24 | 84.08 | 10.31 | 0.36 |
| Run Year | Mean Temperature | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 10.93 | 22.65 | 0.15 |
| 06/07 | 11.03 | 13.77 | 0.03 |
| 07/08 | 10.67 | 8.24 | 0.14 |
| 08/09 | 10.47 | 10.91 | 0.09 |
| 09/10 | 11.13 | 8.55 | 0.16 |
| 10/11 | 10.70 | 22.67 | 0.02 |
| 11/12 | 10.52 | 43.37 | 0.04 |
| 12/13 | 11.14 | 41.49 | 0.14 |
| 13/14 | 11.26 | 21.70 | 0.06 |
| 14/15 | 12.06 | 19.42 | 0.00 |
| 15/16 | 12.35 | 14.26 | 0.04 |
| 16/17 | 11.42 | 35.89 | 0.01 |
| 17/18 | 11.62 | 35.61 | 0.01 |
| 18/19 | 11.57 | 14.60 | 0.06 |
| 19/20 | 11.59 | 13.27 | 0.08 |
| 20/21 | 11.49 | 19.19 | 0.08 |
| 21/22 | 11.52 | 15.57 | 0.04 |
| 22/23 | 11.21 | 30.36 | 0.07 |
| 23/24 | 12.23 | 10.31 | 0.09 |
| Run Year | Mean Flow | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 110.06 | 9.17 | 0.61 |
| 06/07 | 117.21 | 8.11 | 0.48 |
| 07/08 | 102.50 | 8.01 | 0.59 |
| 08/09 | 103.16 | 7.92 | 0.66 |
| 09/10 | 85.63 | 5.91 | 0.50 |
| 10/11 | 120.70 | 11.34 | 0.60 |
| 11/12 | 139.25 | 18.61 | 0.84 |
| 12/13 | 140.42 | 16.55 | 0.78 |
| 13/14 | 118.38 | 15.52 | 0.49 |
| 14/15 | 121.38 | 13.09 | 0.00 |
| 15/16 | 106.98 | 7.67 | 0.38 |
| 16/17 | 131.33 | 20.11 | 0.80 |
| 17/18 | 131.02 | 24.07 | 0.82 |
| 18/19 | 101.78 | 8.49 | 0.69 |
| 19/20 | 99.23 | 9.74 | 0.54 |
| 20/21 | 113.29 | 14.76 | 0.69 |
| 21/22 | 112.32 | 9.05 | 0.19 |
| 22/23 | 118.21 | 20.68 | 0.82 |
| 23/24 | 86.04 | 5.97 | 0.26 |
| Run Year | Mean Temperature | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 10.55 | 9.17 | 0.10 |
| 06/07 | 10.66 | 8.11 | 0.16 |
| 07/08 | 10.29 | 8.01 | 0.26 |
| 08/09 | 10.10 | 7.92 | 0.13 |
| 09/10 | 10.75 | 5.91 | 0.20 |
| 10/11 | 10.32 | 11.34 | 0.03 |
| 11/12 | 10.14 | 18.61 | 0.08 |
| 12/13 | 10.77 | 16.55 | 0.12 |
| 13/14 | 10.88 | 15.52 | 0.00 |
| 14/15 | 11.68 | 13.09 | 0.50 |
| 15/16 | 11.98 | 7.67 | 0.08 |
| 16/17 | 11.04 | 20.11 | 0.00 |
| 17/18 | 11.25 | 24.07 | 0.00 |
| 18/19 | 11.19 | 8.49 | 0.11 |
| 19/20 | 11.21 | 9.74 | 0.05 |
| 20/21 | 11.11 | 14.76 | 0.09 |
| 21/22 | 11.14 | 9.05 | 0.16 |
| 22/23 | 10.83 | 20.68 | 0.05 |
| 23/24 | 11.86 | 5.97 | 0.12 |
| Run Year | Mean Flow | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 108.94 | 5.45 | 0.50 |
| 06/07 | 114.19 | 5.14 | 0.48 |
| 07/08 | 100.63 | 3.82 | 0.55 |
| 08/09 | 100.67 | 4.99 | 0.62 |
| 09/10 | 83.22 | 2.01 | 0.23 |
| 10/11 | 116.85 | 7.73 | 0.56 |
| 11/12 | 136.80 | 18.67 | 0.81 |
| 12/13 | 136.59 | 18.44 | 0.73 |
| 13/14 | 114.24 | 6.61 | 0.63 |
| 14/15 | 114.86 | 5.14 | 0.50 |
| 15/16 | 100.19 | 3.48 | 0.41 |
| 16/17 | 128.59 | 19.61 | 0.85 |
| 17/18 | 126.77 | 18.67 | 0.78 |
| 18/19 | 96.54 | 5.45 | 0.62 |
| 19/20 | 93.93 | 6.19 | 0.65 |
| 20/21 | 107.89 | 10.09 | 0.63 |
| 21/22 | 106.24 | 3.11 | 0.11 |
| 22/23 | 114.82 | 11.20 | 0.71 |
| 23/24 | 84.06 | 1.58 | 0.12 |
| Run Year | Mean Temperature | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 10.54 | 5.45 | 0.04 |
| 06/07 | 10.64 | 5.14 | 0.04 |
| 07/08 | 10.28 | 3.82 | 0.12 |
| 08/09 | 10.09 | 4.99 | 0.10 |
| 09/10 | 10.74 | 2.01 | 0.24 |
| 10/11 | 10.31 | 7.73 | 0.02 |
| 11/12 | 10.13 | 18.67 | 0.03 |
| 12/13 | 10.75 | 18.44 | 0.09 |
| 13/14 | 10.87 | 6.61 | 0.10 |
| 14/15 | 11.67 | 5.14 | 0.04 |
| 15/16 | 11.96 | 3.48 | 0.03 |
| 16/17 | 11.03 | 19.61 | 0.03 |
| 17/18 | 11.23 | 18.67 | 0.00 |
| 18/19 | 11.18 | 5.45 | 0.04 |
| 19/20 | 11.20 | 6.19 | 0.00 |
| 20/21 | 11.10 | 10.09 | 0.08 |
| 21/22 | 11.13 | 3.11 | 0.22 |
| 22/23 | 10.82 | 11.20 | 0.03 |
| 23/24 | 11.85 | 1.58 | 0.15 |
| Run Year | Mean Flow | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 109.27 | 6.93 | 0.55 |
| 06/07 | 113.57 | 9.49 | 0.62 |
| 07/08 | 101.25 | 4.60 | 0.56 |
| 08/09 | 101.33 | 6.90 | 0.67 |
| 09/10 | 83.73 | 2.86 | 0.52 |
| 10/11 | 116.28 | 8.77 | 0.59 |
| 11/12 | 135.89 | 21.32 | 0.82 |
| 12/13 | 136.07 | 17.36 | 0.75 |
| 13/14 | 114.37 | 7.12 | 0.70 |
| 14/15 | 116.89 | 4.86 | 0.43 |
| 15/16 | 101.79 | 4.63 | 0.60 |
| 16/17 | 127.72 | 12.14 | 0.76 |
| 17/18 | 125.75 | 17.40 | 0.79 |
| 18/19 | 97.89 | 6.87 | 0.66 |
| 19/20 | 95.25 | 5.36 | 0.56 |
| 20/21 | 109.59 | 10.14 | 0.69 |
| 21/22 | 105.17 | 6.65 | 0.32 |
| 22/23 | 114.67 | 14.26 | 0.80 |
| 23/24 | 82.86 | 2.68 | 0.23 |
| Run Year | Mean Temperature | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 10.36 | 6.93 | 0.01 |
| 06/07 | 10.46 | 9.49 | 0.02 |
| 07/08 | 10.10 | 4.60 | 0.05 |
| 08/09 | 9.90 | 6.90 | 0.06 |
| 09/10 | 10.56 | 2.86 | 0.18 |
| 10/11 | 10.13 | 8.77 | 0.00 |
| 11/12 | 9.94 | 21.32 | 0.03 |
| 12/13 | 10.57 | 17.36 | 0.09 |
| 13/14 | 10.68 | 7.12 | 0.02 |
| 14/15 | 11.49 | 4.86 | 0.04 |
| 15/16 | 11.78 | 4.63 | 0.02 |
| 16/17 | 10.85 | 12.14 | 0.01 |
| 17/18 | 11.05 | 17.40 | 0.00 |
| 18/19 | 11.00 | 6.87 | 0.07 |
| 19/20 | 11.01 | 5.36 | 0.02 |
| 20/21 | 10.91 | 10.14 | 0.07 |
| 21/22 | 10.94 | 6.65 | 0.02 |
| 22/23 | 10.64 | 14.26 | 0.03 |
| 23/24 | 11.66 | 2.68 | 0.04 |
| Run Year | Mean Flow | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 50.14 | 16.50 | 0.76 |
| 06/07 | 40.76 | 13.98 | 0.65 |
| 07/08 | 36.80 | 13.54 | 0.83 |
| 08/09 | 52.24 | 20.56 | 0.83 |
| 09/10 | 38.52 | 14.49 | 0.76 |
| 10/11 | 59.71 | 22.48 | 0.82 |
| 11/12 | 65.12 | 27.35 | 0.89 |
| 12/13 | 40.98 | 16.08 | 0.77 |
| 13/14 | 42.29 | 15.22 | 0.69 |
| 14/15 | 41.15 | 13.89 | 0.50 |
| 15/16 | 39.07 | 12.97 | 0.68 |
| 16/17 | 59.80 | 29.43 | 0.95 |
| 17/18 | 60.97 | 27.93 | 0.84 |
| 18/19 | 48.72 | 23.44 | 0.93 |
| 19/20 | 42.16 | 16.00 | 0.93 |
| 20/21 | 40.35 | 14.71 | 0.88 |
| 21/22 | 33.88 | 12.65 | 0.84 |
| 22/23 | 46.97 | 21.91 | 0.93 |
| 23/24 | 40.87 | 16.60 | 0.86 |
| Run Year | Mean Temperature | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 11.90 | 16.50 | 0.01 |
| 06/07 | 12.00 | 13.98 | 0.06 |
| 07/08 | 11.64 | 13.54 | 0.01 |
| 08/09 | 11.44 | 20.56 | 0.04 |
| 09/10 | 12.10 | 14.49 | 0.12 |
| 10/11 | 11.67 | 22.48 | 0.00 |
| 11/12 | 11.49 | 27.35 | 0.03 |
| 12/13 | 12.11 | 16.08 | 0.04 |
| 13/14 | 12.23 | 15.22 | 0.00 |
| 14/15 | 13.03 | 13.89 | 0.06 |
| 15/16 | 13.32 | 12.97 | 0.01 |
| 16/17 | 12.39 | 29.43 | 0.06 |
| 17/18 | 12.59 | 27.93 | 0.00 |
| 18/19 | 12.54 | 23.44 | 0.00 |
| 19/20 | 12.56 | 16.00 | 0.00 |
| 20/21 | 12.46 | 14.71 | 0.01 |
| 21/22 | 12.49 | 12.65 | 0.00 |
| 22/23 | 12.18 | 21.91 | 0.00 |
| 23/24 | 13.20 | 16.60 | 0.00 |
| Run Year | Mean Flow | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 49.31 | 12.10 | 0.73 |
| 06/07 | 40.13 | 8.91 | 0.59 |
| 07/08 | 36.57 | 9.87 | 0.85 |
| 08/09 | 51.32 | 12.31 | 0.81 |
| 09/10 | 38.75 | 8.67 | 0.70 |
| 10/11 | 58.88 | 14.32 | 0.79 |
| 11/12 | 64.01 | 15.30 | 0.82 |
| 12/13 | 40.20 | 9.08 | 0.66 |
| 13/14 | 41.63 | 8.78 | 0.55 |
| 14/15 | 40.86 | 7.98 | 0.39 |
| 15/16 | 39.24 | 6.92 | 0.49 |
| 16/17 | 58.95 | 19.21 | 0.87 |
| 17/18 | 59.50 | 14.83 | 0.71 |
| 18/19 | 47.94 | 12.87 | 0.81 |
| 19/20 | 41.78 | 13.87 | 0.80 |
| 20/21 | 39.78 | 13.45 | 0.82 |
| 21/22 | 33.49 | 10.96 | 0.77 |
| 22/23 | 46.82 | 16.43 | 0.86 |
| 23/24 | 40.60 | 17.13 | 0.85 |
| Run Year | Mean Temperature | Mean Spill | R-squared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06 | 11.01 | 12.10 | 0.02 |
| 06/07 | 11.11 | 8.91 | 0.12 |
| 07/08 | 10.75 | 9.87 | 0.03 |
| 08/09 | 10.55 | 12.31 | 0.06 |
| 09/10 | 11.21 | 8.67 | 0.14 |
| 10/11 | 10.78 | 14.32 | 0.01 |
| 11/12 | 10.59 | 15.30 | 0.05 |
| 12/13 | 11.22 | 9.08 | 0.08 |
| 13/14 | 11.33 | 8.78 | 0.05 |
| 14/15 | 12.13 | 7.98 | 0.11 |
| 15/16 | 12.43 | 6.92 | 0.09 |
| 16/17 | 11.50 | 19.21 | 0.03 |
| 17/18 | 11.70 | 14.83 | 0.03 |
| 18/19 | 11.65 | 12.87 | 0.01 |
| 19/20 | 11.66 | 13.87 | 0.02 |
| 20/21 | 11.56 | 13.45 | 0.02 |
| 21/22 | 11.59 | 10.96 | 0.00 |
| 22/23 | 11.29 | 16.43 | 0.00 |
| 23/24 | 12.31 | 17.13 | 0.00 |
The figures below show the predicted final fates of fish from different natal tributaries under the median conditions in our study system from 2005-2024. The final fates for hatchery and natural origin fish are shown on each plot. However, in the case of the six Snake River tribuatries (Tucannon River, Clearwater River, Asotin Creek, Grande Ronde River, Salmon River, and Imnaha River), the difference between in-river and transported juvenile migrants is highlighted instead of the differences between rearing type, with a separate plot provided for each rearing type.
NOTE: Detection efficiency could not be estimated for the Clearwater River, because of the lack of a site close to the confluence with the Snake River. Therefore, the estimate of final fate in the Clearwater River is biased low, while the estimate of final fate in the mainstem state that connects to the Clearwater river (mainstem, upstream of LGR) is biased high.
NOTE: Detection efficiency could not be estimated for the Clearwater River, because of the lack of a site close to the confluence with the Snake River. Therefore, the estimate of final fate in the Clearwater River is biased low, while the estimate of final fate in the mainstem state that connects to the Clearwater river (mainstem, upstream of LGR) is biased high.
NOTE: Detection efficiency could not be estimated for the Clearwater River, because of the lack of a site close to the confluence with the Snake River. Therefore, the estimate of final fate in the Clearwater River is biased low, while the estimate of final fate in the mainstem state that connects to the Clearwater river (mainstem, upstream of LGR) is biased high.
| Population | 1 | 2+ |
|---|---|---|
| John Day River, Natural | 0.32 (0.23 - 0.4) | 0.11 (0.07 - 0.16) |
| Umatilla River, Natural | 0.26 (0.18 - 0.35) | 0.1 (0.06 - 0.15) |
| Umatilla River, Hatchery | 0.25 (0.14 - 0.35) | 0.06 (0.02 - 0.11) |
| Walla Walla River, Natural | 0.26 (0.2 - 0.32) | 0.16 (0.11 - 0.22) |
| Walla Walla River, Hatchery | 0.35 (0.28 - 0.41) | 0.27 (0.21 - 0.34) |
| Yakima River, Natural | 0.1 (0.06 - 0.15) | 0.05 (0.02 - 0.08) |
| Wenatchee River, Natural | 0.03 (0 - 0.07) | 0.02 (0 - 0.05) |
| Wenatchee River, Hatchery | 0.05 (0.03 - 0.09) | 0.16 (0.09 - 0.25) |
| Entiat River, Natural | 0.36 (0.28 - 0.47) |
|
| Tucannon River, Natural (not transported) | 0.53 (0.45 - 0.61) |
|
| Tucannon River, Natural (transported) | 0.42 (0.03 - 0.71) |
|
| Tucannon River, Hatchery (not transported) | 0.51 (0.44 - 0.58) |
|
| Tucannon River, Hatchery (transported) | 0.24 (0.07 - 0.34) |
|
| Population | No overshoot | 1 | 2+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| John Day River, Natural | 0.66 (0.55 - 0.75) | 0.5 (0.42 - 0.57) | 0.15 (0.07 - 0.25) |
| Umatilla River, Natural | 0.68 (0.56 - 0.78) | 0.67 (0.58 - 0.75) | 0.26 (0.13 - 0.39) |
| Umatilla River, Hatchery | 0.34 (0.2 - 0.51) | 0.3 (0.2 - 0.42) | 0.12 (0.04 - 0.25) |
| Walla Walla River, Natural | 0.79 (0.62 - 0.89) | 0.55 (0.44 - 0.65) | 0.15 (0.1 - 0.23) |
| Walla Walla River, Hatchery | 0.71 (0.6 - 0.84) | 0.15 (0.1 - 0.35) | 0.05 (0.02 - 0.11) |
| Yakima River, Natural | 0.99 (0.93 - 1) | 0.87 (0.75 - 0.95) | 0.3 (0.12 - 0.55) |
| Wenatchee River, Natural | 0.98 (0.93 - 1) | 0.91 (0.67 - 1) | 0.57 (0.17 - 1) |
| Wenatchee River, Hatchery | 0.95 (0.89 - 0.98) | 0.47 (0.33 - 0.63) | 0.05 (0.02 - 0.1) |
| Entiat River, Natural | 0.95 (0.89 - 0.99) | 0.71 (0.6 - 0.82) |
|
| Tucannon River, Natural (not transported) | 0.74 (0.6 - 0.86) | 0.29 (0.21 - 0.37) |
|
| Tucannon River, Natural (transported) | 0.69 (0.03 - 1) | 0.14 (0.01 - 0.41) |
|
| Tucannon River, Hatchery (not transported) | 0.6 (0.46 - 0.74) | 0.28 (0.22 - 0.34) |
|
| Tucannon River, Hatchery (transported) | 0.66 (0.29 - 0.9) | 0.25 (0.14 - 0.37) |
|
This section presents shows Figures 5 and 6 from the main manuscript where the model is re-run where only days of spill in March are used as a covariate instead of days of spill in January, February, and March (as is used in the base model).